The relationship between R&D subsidy and R&D cooperation in eco-innovative companiesan analysis taking a complementarity approach

Referències bibliogràfiques

• Aerts, K., & Czarnitzki, D. (2006). The impact of public R&D-funding in flanders. Brussels, Belgium: IWT Study No. 54.
• Ambec, S., Cohen, M., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013). The porter hypothesis at 20: Can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7, 2–22.
• Amores-Salvad o, J., Martin de Castro, G., & Navas-L opez, J. E. (2015). The importance of the complementarity between environmental management systems and environ- mental innovation capabilities: A firm level approach to environmental and busi- ness performance benefits. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 96, 288–297.
• Ballot, G., Fakhfakh, F., Galia, F., & Salter, A. (2015). The fateful triangle. Complementar- ities between product, process and organizational innovation in the UK and France. Research Policy, 44, 217–232.
• Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms - evi- dence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33, 209–223.
• Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2006). Complementarity in R&D cooperation strategies. Review of Industrial Organization, 28, 401–426.
• Belderbos, R., Carree, M. A., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004a). Heteroge- neity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organaniza- tion, 22, 1137–1263.
• Belderbos, R., Carree, M. A., & Lokshin, B. (2004b). Cooperative R&D and firm perfor- mance. Research Policy, 33, 1477–1492.
• Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innova- tions. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 891–909.
• Boons, F., & Wagner, M. (2009). Assessing the relationship between economic and eco- logical performance: Distinguishing system levels and the role of Innovation. Eco- logical Economics, 68, 1908–1914.
• Bower, J. L., & Hout, T. M. (1988). Fast cycle capability for competitive power. Harvard Business Review, 66, 110–118.
• Broekel, T. (2015). Do cooperative research and development (R&D) subsidies stimu- late regional innovation efficiency? Evidence from Germany. Regional Studies, 49, 1087–1110.
• Broekel, T., & Graf, H. (2012). Public research intensity and the structure of German R&D networks: A comparison of 10 technologies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21, 345–372.
• Broekel, T., Schimke, A., & Brenner, T. (2011). The effects of cooperative R&D subsidies and subsidized cooperation on employment growth.Working Paper Series in Eco- nomics, No. 34.
• Burnett, R., Hansen, D., & Quintana, O. (2007). Eco-efficiency: Achieving productivity improvements through environmental cost management. Accounting and the Pub- lic Interest, 7, 66–92.
• Cainelli, G., De Marchi, V., & Grandinetti, R. (2015). Does the development of environ- mental innovation require different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 211–220.
• Caloghirou, Y., Ioannides, S., & Vonortas, N. (2003). Research joint ventures. Journal of Economic Surveys, 17, 541–570.
• Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D co-operation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92, 1169–1184.
• Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strat- egy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52, 68–82.
• Chang, C. H. (2011). The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: The mediation role of Green innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 361–370.
• Chatterjee, R., Chattopadhyay, S., & Kabiraj, T. (2018). Spillovers and R&D incentive under incomplete information. Studies in Microeconomics, 6, 50–65.
• Cheng, C. C. J., Yang, C. L., & Sheu, C. (2014). The link between eco-innovation and busi- ness performance: A Taiwanese industry context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 81–90.
• Christainsen, G. B., & Haveman, R. H. (1981). The contribution of environmental regula- tion to the slowdown in productivity growth. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 8, 381–390.
• Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of best practices of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 663–680.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.
• Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
• Collins, E., Lawrence, S., Pavlovich, K., & Ryan, C. (2007). Business networks and the uptake of sustainability practices: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Pro- duction, 15, 729–740.
• Coombs, R., Harvey, M., & Tether, B. S. (2003). Analysing distributed processes of provi- sion and innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 1125–1155.
• Cordeiro, J. J., & Sarkis, J. (1997). Environmental proactivism and firm performance: Evi- dence from security analyst earnings forecasts. Business Strategy and the Environ- ment, 6, 104–114.
• Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B., & Fier, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D collabo- ration, subsidies and patenting activity: Empirical evidence from Finland and Ger- many. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 1347–1366.
• Dahlman, C. (2007). Technology, globalization, and international competitiveness: Challenges for developing countries. UnitedNations, Industrial development for the 21st century: Sustainable development perspectives UnitedNations. (pp. 29−83). New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations.
• Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26, 31–61.
• Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An inte- grated framework. Organization Studies, 22, 251–283.
• d’Aspremont, C., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review, 78, 1133–1137.
• De Marchi, V. (2012). Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evi- dence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 41, 614–623.
• De Marchi, V. D., & Grandinetti, R. (2013). Knowledge strategies for environmental innovations: The case of Italian manufacturing firms. Journal of Knowledge Manage- ment, 17, 569–582.
• Del Río, P., Pe~nasco, C., & Romero-Jord an, D. (2015). Distinctive features of environ- mental innovators: An econometric analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 361–385.
• Del Río, P., Romero-Jord an, D., & Pe~nasco, C. (2017). Analysing firm-specific and type- specific determinants of eco-innovation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 23, 270–295.
• Ebersberger, B., & Herstad, S. (2013). The relationship between international innova- tion collaboration, intramural R&D and SMEs innovation performance: A quantile regression approach. Applied Economic Letters, 20, 626–630.
• Edler, J. (2008). Creative internationalization: Widening the perspectives on analysis and policy regarding international R&D activities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 337–352.
• Eiadat, Y., Kelly, A., Roche, F., & Eyadat, H. (2008). Green and competitive? An empirical test of the mediating role of environmental innovation strategy. Journal of World Business, 43, 131–145.
• Eisenhardt, K. M., & Scoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alli- ances formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7, 136–150.
• European Commission. (1995). Green paper on innovation. Luxembourg: Office for offi- cial publications of the european communities.
• Faems, D., de Visser, M., Andries, P., & Van Looy, B. (2010). Technology alliance portfo- lios and financial performance: Value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 785–796.
• Feichtinger, G., Hartl, R. F., Kort, P. M., & Veliov, V. M. (2003). Environmental policy, the Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital: Effects of learning and technolog- ical progress. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50, 434–446.
• Filbeck, G., & Gorman, R. F. (2004). The Relationship between the environmental and financial performance of public utilities. Environmental and Resource Economics, 29, 137–157.
• Fornahl, D., Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. A. (2011). What drives patent performance of German biotech firms? The impact of R&D subsidies, knowledge networks and their location. Papers in Regional Science, 90, 395–418.
• Ghisetti, C., Mancinelli, S., Mazzanti, M., & Zoli, M. (2017). Financial barriers and envi- ronmental innovations: Evidence from EU manufacturing firms. Climate Policy, 17, 131–147.
• Gollop, F. M., & Roberts, M. J. (1983). Environmental regulation and productivity growth: The case of fossil-fueled electric power generation. Journal of Political Economy, 91, 654–674.
• Gonz alez-Blanco, J., Coca-P erez, J. L., & Guisado-Gonz alez, M. (2018). The contribution of technological and non-technological innovation to environmental performance. An analysis with a complementary approach. Sustainability, 10(11), 4014. doi:10.3390/su10114014.
• Gonz alez-Blanco, J., Vila-Alonso, M., & Guisado-Gonz alez, M. (2019). Exploring the complementarity between foreign technology, embedded technology and increase of productive capacity. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25, 39–58.
• Graevenittz, G. (2004). Spillovers reconsidered: How optimal R&D subsidies depend on the spillover process. Mimeo: Department of Economics, University College London.
• Gray, W. B. (1987). The cost of regulation: OSHA, EPA and the productivity slowdown. American Economic Review, 77, 998–1006.
• Gray, W. B., & Shadbegian, R. J. (2003). Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46, 384–402.
• Greenstone, M. (2002). The impacts of environmental regulations on industrial activ- ity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 clean air act amendments and the census manufacturers. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 1175–1219.
• Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
• Guisado-Gonz alez, M., Gonz alez-Blanco, J., & Coca-P erez, J. L. (2017). Analyzing the relationship between exploration, exploitation and organizational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21, 1142–1162.
• Guisado-Gonz alez, M., Gonz alez-Blanco, J., Coca-P erez, J. L., & Guisado-Tato, M. (2018). Assessing the relationship between R&D subsidy, R&D cooperation and absorptive capacity: An investigation on the manufacturing Spanish case. Journal of Technol- ogy Transfer, 43, 1647–1666.
• Gussoni, M., & Mangani, A. (2009). The impact of public funding for innovation on firms' R&D investments: Do R&D cooperation and appropriability matter? Department of Economics, University of Pisa Discussion papers, 90.
• Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31, 477–492.
• Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the returns to R&D. In B. H. Hall, & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (pp. 1034−1076). Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier.
• Harris, R., Krenza, A., & Moffata, J. (2019). The impacts of absorptive capacity in the European Union. Online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333388489
• Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica : jour- nal of the Econometric Society, 47, 153–161.
• Hennart, J. F. (1988). A transaction cost theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Man- agement Journal, 9, 361–374.
• Hollanders, H., & Es-Sadki, N. (2013). Innovation union scoreboard 2013. Maastricht eco- nomic and social research institute on innovation and technology. Maastricht, The Netherlands: UNU-MERIT.
• Horbach, J. (2008). Determinants of environmental innovation-New evidence from German panel data sources. Research Policy, 37, 163–173.
• Horbach, J., Oltra, V., & Belin, J. (2013). Determinants and specificities of eco-innova- tions compared to other innovations-An econometric analysis for the French and German industry based on the community innovation survey. Industry and Innova- tion, 20, 523–543.
• Hottenrott, H., & Lopes-Bento, C. (2014). (International) R&D collaboration and SMEs: The effectiveness of targeted public R&D support schemes. Research Policy, 43, 1055–1066.
• Inkpen, A. C. (1998). Learning, knowledge acquisition and strategic alliances. European Management Journal, 16, 223–229.
• Jaffe, A., Newell, R., & Stavins, R. (2005). A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54, 164–174.
• Jaffe, A. B., & Palmer, K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 610–619.
• Jorde, T. M., & Teece, D. J. (1990). Innovation and cooperation: Implications for compe- tition and antitrust. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4, 75–96.
• Jov e-Llopis, E., & Segarra-Blasco, A. (2017). Eco-innovation: Spanish service and manufacturing firms. Spain: Universitat Rovira i Virgili Document de treball, n.09.
• Jov e-Llopis, E., & Segarra-Blasco, A. (2018). Eco-innovation strategies: A panel data analysis of Spanish manufacturing firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27, 1209–1220.
• Kamien, M. I., Muller, E., & Zang, I. (1992). Research joint ventures and R&D cartels. American Economic Review, 82, 1293–1306.
• Katz, M. L. (1986). An analysis of cooperative research and development. RAND Journal of Economics, 17, 527–543.
• Katz, M. L., & Ordover, J. A. (1990). R&D cooperation and competition. In M. N. Baily, & C. Winston (Eds.), Brookings papers on economic activit: Microeconomics (pp. 137 −203). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
• Khanna, T. (1998). The scope of alliances. Organization Science, 9, 340–355.
• Klassen, D., & Whybark, D. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 599–615.
• Konar, S., & Cohen, M. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 281–289.
• Kristrom, B., & Riera, P. (1996). Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Environmental and Resource Economics, 7, 45–55
• . L opez, A. (2008). Determinants of R&D cooperation: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26, 113–136.
• Lui, S. S., & Ngo, H. Y. (2004). The role of trust and contractual safeguards on coopera- tion in non-equity alliances. Journal of Management, 30, 471–485.
• Luo, Y. (2002). Contract, cooperation, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 903–919.
• Marcus, A., & Geffen, D. (1998). The dialectics of competency acquisition: Pollution pre- vention in electric generation. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1145–1168.
• Markides, C. C., & Williamson, P. J. (1996). Corporate diversification and organizational structure: A resource-based view: 39 (pp. 340−367). Academy of Management Jour- nal.
• Martin, S. (2002). Spillovers, appropriability, and R&D. Journal of Economics, 75, 1–32.
• Mayer, K. J., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Capabilities, contractual hazards, and governance: Integrating resource-based and transaction cost perspectives. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 49, 942–959.
• Mazzanti, M., & Zoboli, R. (2009). Embedding environmental innovation in local pro- duction systems: SME strategies, networking and industrial relations: Evidence on innovation drivers in industrial districts. International Review of Applied Economics, 23, 169–195.
• Mazzi, A., Toniolo, S., Manzardo, A., Ren, J., & Scipioni, A. (2016). Exploring the direction on the environmental and business performance relationship at the firm level. Les- sons from a literature review. Sustainability, 8, 1–25.
• Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing: Technol- ogy, strategy, and organization. American Economic Review, 80, 511–528.
• Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An inte- grated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32, 1481–1499.
• Mistri, M., & Solari, S. (2001). Social networks and productive connectance: Modeling the organizational form of the industrial district. Human System Management, 20, 223–236
• . Mohnen, P., & R€oller, L. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy. European Eco- nomic Review, 49, 1431–1450.
• Molero, J., & Buesa, M. (1996). Patterns of technological change among Spanish innova- tive firms: The case of the Madrid region. Research Policy, 25, 647–663.
• Monteverde, K., & Teece, D. J. (1982). Appropriable rents and quasi-vertical integration. Journal of Law and Economics, 25, 321–328.
• Mooty, S., & Kedia, B. (2014). R&D partnership portfolio strategies for breakthrough inno- vation: Developing knowledge exchange capabilities. In R. Culpan (Ed.), Open inno- vation through strategic alliances (pp. 219−252). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Munodawafa, R. T., & Johl, S. K. (2019). A systematic review of eco-innovation and per- formance from the resource-based and stakeholder perspectives. Sustainability, 11, 6067.
• Park, N. K., Mezias, J. M., & Song, J. (2004). A resource-based view of strategic alliances and firm value in the electronic marketplace. Journal of Management, 30, 7–27.
• Pearce, D., & Palmer, C. (2001). Public and private spending for environmental protec- tion: A cross-country policy analysis. Fiscal Studies, 22, 403–456.
• Pons, M., Bikfalvi, A., & Llach, J. (2018). Clustering product innovators: A comparison between conventional and green product innovators. International Journal of Pro- duction Management and Engineering, 6, 37–46.
• Porter, M. (1991). America's green strategy. Scientific American, 264, 168.
• Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment- competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 97–118.
• Posch, A. (2010). Industrial recycling networks as starting points for broader sustain- ability oriented cooperation? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 242–257.
• Pujari, D. (2006). Eco-innovation and new product development: Understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation, 26, 76–85.
• Quan Zhang, K., & Hung Chen, H. (2017). Environmental performance and financing decisions impact on sustainable financial development of Chinese environmental protection enterprises. Sustainability, 9, 2260.
• Rammer, C., Czarnitzki, D., & Spielkamp, A. (2009). Innovation success of non-R&D-per- formers: Substituting technology by management in SMEs. Small Business Econom- ics, 33, 35–58.
• Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation - eco-innovation research and the contribu- tion from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 32, 319–332.
• Rexh€auser, S., & Rammer, C. (2014). Environmental innovations and firm profitability: Unmasking the Porter hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57, 145–167.
• Roxburgh, C., Labaye, E., Thompson, F., Tacke, T., & Kauffman, D. (2012). Investing in growth: Europe’s next challenge. McKinsey Global Institute. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/»/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Europe/ Investing%20in%20growth/MGI_Europe_Investing_Executive_Summary_Dec2012. ashx.
• S aez-Martínez, F. J., Díaz-García, C., & Gonzalez-Moreno, A. (2016). Firm technological trajectory as a driver of eco-innovation in young small and medium-sized enter- prises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138, 28–37.
• Sakakibara, M. (2001). The diversity of R&D consortia and firm behavior: Evidence from Japanese data. Journal of Industrial Economics, 49, 181–196.
• Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2011). Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: Evidence from the fifth EU Framework Programme. Annals of Regional Science, 46, 247–266.
• Segarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J. M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry −university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37, 1283– 1295.
• Shadbegian, R. J., & Gray, W. B. (2005). Pollution abatement expenditures and plant-level productivity: A production function approach. Ecological Economics, 54, 196–208.
• Shakina, E., & Barajas, A. (2020). Innovate or Perish?: Companies under crisis. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 26, 145–154.
• Stoll, M. L. (2011). Green chemistry meets green business: A match long overdue. Jour- nal of Business Ethics, 99, 23–28.
• Suzumura, K. (1992). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in an oligopoly with spill- overs. American Economic Review, 82, 1307–1320.
• Teece, D. J. (1981). The Market for know-how and the efficient international transfer of technology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 458, 81– 96.
• Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integra- tion, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
• Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31, 947–967.
• Topkis, D. M. (1978). Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice. Operations Research, 26(2), 305–321.
• Triguero, A., Moreno-Mond ejar, L., & Davia, M. A. (2013). Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs. Ecological Economics, 92, 25–33.
• Van Leeuwen, G., & Mohnen, P. (2017). Revisiting the porter hypothesis: An empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 26, 63–77.
• Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial perfor- mance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.
• Wagner, M., Phu, N. V., Azomahou, T., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2002). The relationship between the environmental and economic performance of firms: An empirical analysis of the European paper industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi- ronmental Management, 9, 133–146.
• Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and greenwashing: Corpo- rate actions and communications on environmental performance and their finan- cial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 227–239.
• Walley, N., & Withehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review46–52 May -June.
• Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
• Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 405–431.
• Wooldridge, J. M. (1995). Selection corrections for panel data models under conditional mean independence assumptions. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 115–132.
• Yip, G. (1992). Total global strategy: Managing for worldwide competitive advantage. Eng- lewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Zhang, J. A., & Walton, S. (2016). Eco-innovation and business performance: The mod- erating effects of environmental orientation and resource commitment in green- oriented SMEs. R&D Management, 47, 26–39.